Baker Mayfield didn't have a first round grade in the eyes of many teams, but the Browns, who are perennially the joke of the league, picked him number one overall.

Sam Darnold was the consensus best QB in the draft, when it came to ticking the boxes:

- big frame 6'3+ 220- only 20 years old- good arm- great anticipatory thrower- great pocket mobility- won in college and turned around his program- clutch in late game situations- humble, hardworking and no off-field issues

Instead the chose Baker Mayfield:- 6ft- 23 years old- system qb- limited experience against anything resembling an nfl defense- arrested for drunk and disorderly and running from the police- numerous on-field incidents of immaturity that resulted in a suspension- won in college but in a weak conference- divisive Marmite personality

I think it stands out as a shocking pick because the Browns more than anyone else should know the importance of hitting on a QB pick that at least comes with a solid floor and no potential for off-field problems. Baker Mayfield bares a strong resemblance to Johnny Manziel, their most recent epic first round QB bust. Not so much in his play style as Mayfield is a better natural QB but in the overall package you get: an undersized, physically limited QB with attitude and possibly deeper off-field problems that is fighting against historical trends from the moment he enters the league.

My personal opinion is that it’s frustrating that we passed on the bigger dude with a special set of traits in Darnold who is more suited to the pro game, at least as functionally athletic, a fantastic anticipatory thrower, and a QB with a lot more experience of how to navigate muddy pockets and make bucket throws with rushers around and bearing down on him.

All that being said though, it's impossible to know how this is all going to turn out until they've both had at least a couple of years of playing time.

But you do get the sense that the Browns have Brownsed it up once again.

FloridaHammer wrote:Don't know if this has been mentioned elsewhere but I wonder if the proposed sale of Wembley is the first step towards the Jaguars moving to London?

I was considering making a separate thread on this as it's potentially massive news.

I've read that Jags fans are staunch believers that they aren't going anywhere. They cite the $2.5bn project Khan has planned for the area next to their stadium and also the renovations he has already made to Everbank Field.

However, the NFL have apparently been set on London with 2022 as the year, ever since the first International Series game in 2007. The fifteen year plan has always been in motion, and I read in Peter King's MMQB that insiders tell him it still is. First it was random teams to gauge the interest for the sport over here, then it was the testing phase with the Jags making regular trips to see how support for a single team holds up. The Union Jax fan club over here has somewhere in the range of 90,000 members I think. Ironically, a good amount of them want the team to stay in Jacksonville.

Jacksonville say that holding one game a year over here goes a long way to keeping the club afloat. They are the smallest market in the NFL according to Khan (or at least competing for it), with most Jacksonville natives not actually supporting the Jags. A large transplant community that have other interests or already support other teams. London has apparently made the Jaguars among the top 5 most internationally recognised franchises.

For me, I think it's nailed on that they will move here. Simple economics dictate London will beat Jacksonville and Khan will take a bullet from the fans if he has to, in order to get us here in the end. Might start as 4 games in Jacksonville and 4 games in London, and I've even heard the idea of a joint team floated. But apparently the NFL doesn't like that and is all in on London. If you look at how other franchises have coldly moved from much more loyal cities than Jacksonville, the NFL is not worried about ruffling feathers in the name of big business.

London is a 10x bigger market than Jacksonville, and according to the Jags execs, brings in double the revenue.

I've heard that the International Series will still be played in Tottenham for another ten years, but Jacksonville at Wembley will be a separate deal. Maybe we will even have two teams here? I'm not sure the market is big enough for that, but I wouldn't count it out once teams see the success of the first London franchise. The Chargers forced through a diabolical move to LA in the name of money even though that fair-weather city clearly isn't interested enough in two teams. London is far more passionate about football and might have capacity for two sides and a juicy rivalry.

Yeah I think the NFL were wise enough to realise that a London franchise in Tottenham's ground would alienate a strong percentage of the fanbase over here, who wouldn't want anything to do with a team that is associated with a football club so strongly.

Wembley being a neutral site and the home ground for the entire country is much more suitable.

I think the NFL were willing to pay an 'eight figure sum' to Tottenham just for the benefit of additional exposure in the form of International Series games for the next ten years.

I actually wouldn't mind a second franchise at Tottenham's ground, all things considered. It might add to the whole thing in the sense of a great inter-city rivalry and a team that we could really hate!

I don't know how Superbowl would work in London. How long is average Superbowl with Half time show and when is the last Underground train? 4 hours?

8 PM start in London, 3 PM EST in East Coast USA, 12PM West Coast USA, so the game should end about midnight.

Aztec Hammer wrote:Yeah I think the NFL were wise enough to realise that a London franchise in Tottenham's ground would alienate a strong percentage of the fanbase over here, who wouldn't want anything to do with a team that is associated with a football club so strongly.

Wembley being a neutral site and the home ground for the entire country is much more suitable.

I think the NFL were willing to pay an 'eight figure sum' to Tottenham just for the benefit of additional exposure in the form of International Series games for the next ten years.

I actually wouldn't mind a second franchise at Tottenham's ground, all things considered. It might add to the whole thing in the sense of a great inter-city rivalry and a team that we could really hate!

Except NWHL is actually built with NFL in mind but not Wembley.

But I guess that makes little difference if Wembley is owned by one of the NFL owners.

Thekorean wrote:Except NWHL is actually built with NFL in mind but not Wembley.

But I guess that makes little difference if Wembley is owned by one of the NFL owners.

Tottenham were given about £12m by the NFL to help towards configuration of the stadium for NFL. It's a relatively small amount and will be easily covered by the International Series running at the stadium twice a year for the next ten years.

Wembley wasn't built with the NFL in mind but logistically it's about as sound as one could hope. Apart from having to tarp the first so many rows of the lower, which isn't ideal.

The biggest problem with the NFL at Tottenham in a permanent state was always the tribalism of this country. You are immediately at risk of alienating a large amount of the demographic that would not wish to visit or support a franchise that resides in the same stadium and is so strongly associated to Spurs. Wembley is the natural remedy as the bigger stadium, with a 'home' and 'neutral' feeling attached to everyone in the country in the context of national sport.

I also couldn't see Tottenham getting a 2nd London Franchise. We have a strong market here for the sport but two NFL teams in North London, only a dozen miles apart? I don't see it happening.

RIP Dwight Clark who has passed away of ALS at the age of 61. He was one of the greats on one of the greatest NFL teams ever. Hall of Fame inductee in 2009. He's Bay Area royalty. City Hall flag will undoubtedly be at half mast this evening.

WCpete wrote:If I'm not mistaken, Mayfield might share some on and off the field similarities as well behavior-wise, though the Browns are convinced he's no Manziel.

The similarity with Mayfield and Manziel is that the concerns were character-based, but the particulars are different. Manziel was focused on partying and all sorts of things that have nothing to do with football. Mayfield doesn't suffer from that lack of focus. However, he is perceived as having a personality that can be really ****ing annoying. You can win in college by being a "rah rah" type of leader. But in the NFL where your teammates are adults and in a situation where their livelihood is on the line, the other players are not going to swayed by youthful enthusiasm. Many are skeptical that Mayfield lacks the leadership qualities needed at this level. There's also the question of his height, He's generously listed at 6'1", and that's short for an NFL QB. Personally, in a generic setting I'd have taken any of the other 3 over Mayfield, although I'm also skeptical of Rosen. He's in a good, low pressure spot in Arizona, and Josh Allen also landed in favorable venue in Buffalo. If I was choosing one of those to invest a top pick in it would have been Darnold. However, as a Giants fan I am happy with the direction they went in and think Davis Webb actually has excellent potential. Not sure why we picked another QB in the 4th round but I'm just a fan.

bitter-iron-ny wrote:The similarity with Mayfield and Manziel is that the concerns were character-based, but the particulars are different. Manziel was focused on partying and all sorts of things that have nothing to do with football. Mayfield doesn't suffer from that lack of focus. However, he is perceived as having a personality that can be really ****ing annoying. You can win in college by being a "rah rah" type of leader. But in the NFL where your teammates are adults and in a situation where their livelihood is on the line, the other players are not going to swayed by youthful enthusiasm. Many are skeptical that Mayfield lacks the leadership qualities needed at this level. There's also the question of his height, He's generously listed at 6'1", and that's short for an NFL QB. Personally, in a generic setting I'd have taken any of the other 3 over Mayfield, although I'm also skeptical of Rosen. He's in a good, low pressure spot in Arizona, and Josh Allen also landed in favorable venue in Buffalo. If I was choosing one of those to invest a top pick in it would have been Darnold. However, as a Giants fan I am happy with the direction they went in and think Davis Webb actually has excellent potential. Not sure why we picked another QB in the 4th round but I'm just a fan.

re Josh Allen in Buffalo - I guess we'll find out, but what makes you think Buffalo is a favourable venue? IMO he's a very raw prospect, going into a below average offense - their WRs are well below average, they've lost a ton of OL talent, but they do have McCoy. He also has nobody alongside him in terms of QBs who can help him get acclimatised.

I hope you're right about Webb, because picking a RB at 2 will be a massive error if he's anything less than a league average starter. Again, IMO. Absolutely shocked (and delighted) the Giants went RB over Darnold/Rosen - but still, the Jets will find a way to mess it up, they always do